Christiana Trust, et al v. Skypointe Unit Owners' Association et al

Filing 13

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 11 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve and For Service by Publication is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until 12/18/17, to complete service upon Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CHRISTIANA TRUST, A DIVISION OF WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, NOT IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS TRUSTEE OF ARLP TRUST 3, ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SKYPOINTE UNIT OWNERS’ ) ASSOCIATION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:17-cv-01953-RFB-GWF ORDER 14 15 16 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve and For Service by Publication (ECF No. 11), filed on October 16, 2017. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e), the state statutes in which the District Court is held are 18 followed in matters pertaining to service of summons by publication. N.R.C.P. 4(e)(1)(i) states that 19 the court may permit service by publication if, after due diligence shown, the plaintiff is unable to 20 find the defendant(s) within the state, or they are avoiding the service of summons. The plaintiff 21 must prove this to the satisfaction of the court either by affidavit or by a verified complaint. The 22 Nevada Supreme Court has held that there is no objective, formulaic standard for determining what 23 is, or is not, due diligence. Abreu v. Gilmer, 985 P.2d 746, 749 (1999). N.R.C.P. 4(e)(1)(ii) further 24 states that service by publication is valid for “ any action which relates to, or the subject of which is, 25 real or personal property.” 26 Plaintiff argues that it has shown due diligence because it has made several unsuccessful 27 attempts at serving Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, LLC (“Pham”). Specifically, Plaintiff states 28 that it initially attempted service on Pham’s registered agent in Dover, Delaware. Plaintiff was 1 informed that Pham was “cancelled for failure to pay taxes on June 1, 2016.” Motion (ECF No. 11), 2 ¶ 4. Thereafter, Plaintiff’s process server performed a skip trace on Pham, which revealed an 3 address for Pham’s principal/owner as 10015 Prairie Dove Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89117. Id. at ¶ 4 5. Plaintiff’s process server attempted service at that address on three separate occasions, all of 5 which were unsuccessful. Id. at ¶ 6; see Exhibit 3, Affidavit of Due Diligence. Based on the 6 foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated due diligence in attempting service on 7 Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, LLC that would warrant permitting service by publication. 8 Moreover, the subject of the litigation is real property. Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve and 10 For Service by Publication (ECF No. 11) is granted. Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, LLC may be 11 served by Plaintiff through publication of the summons and complaint in this case at least once a 12 week for four (4) consecutive weeks in the Nevada Legal News, which is a newspaper of general 13 circulation published in Las Vegas, Nevada. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall deposit a copy of the summons and 15 complaint in the post office via first class certified mail, directed to Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, 16 LLC’s last known physical addresses: 1) 28 Old Rudnik Lane, Dover, DE 19901 and 2) 10015 17 Prairie Dov Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89117. 18 19 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until December 18, 2017, to complete service upon Defendant Pham Indiana Realty, LLC. DATED this 23rd day of October, 2017. 21 22 23 ______________________________________ GEORGE FOLEY, JR. United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?